Two atrocities...

[JustPherU]

I like Jay Bilas idea of selecting teams after the regular season and have the conference tournaments for automatic bids only.Nothing you do in conference tournaments should matter except for getting the automatic bid.

 

[Eric15]

Yeah, which was a ridiculous over-seed for a meh team that got white-hot (bad pun intended) for a week.

Obviously, the 2006 BET run was iconic, but yeah that team was comically overseeded. Objectively, we should have been in a 8/9 game, at best.

 

[jncuse]

1) How do you put the champ of a P5 conference (Va Tech) at # 11 ... especially since they are one of the hottest teams in the country? Outrageous.

2) How do you leave out aTm ... one of the other hottest teams in the country?

Very disappointing bracket.

Virginia Tech only getting an 11 seed is nowhere near an atrocity. It was more then reasonable. I had them as a 10/11 seed.

100 people on the Bracket Matrix had the at an avg seed of 10.5, which placed them as #41 on the matrix -- the best 11 seed.

The ACC was not really anything close to a traditional P5 conference this year. There was 4 elite conferences -- SEC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12 -- that were clearly above the rest. The ACC's conference metrics before January were about the same as the P12, WCC and the MWC. How a conference does before conference play matters A LOT. It shapes how your conference will do come Selection Sunday. It limits, or opens the door, for middle of the pack teams in those conferences.

Those were the peers of the ACC this year (P12, MWC, WCC) - not those top 4 conferences. And we got treated in a similar manner to them.

Based on that it is quite reasonable that the tournament champ gets an 11 seed. Virginia Tech had 1 Q1 win before the conference tournament, and while its run of 4 ACC victories were impressive, they only beat one elite team in those games. The tournament games are simply treated as "1 additional game", like a game played in November. They are given no extra relevance for when they are played.

I was surprised Texas A&M did not get in. But at the same time I was surprised they got in over a 15-5 ACC team -- which sort of explains why I am fine VTech received an 11 seed.

 

[OrangeDW]

Syracuse went from not in the tournament to a 5 seed in 2006. Virginia Tech got jobbed

While true, I’m going to guess that the teams we beat in the 2006 BET had better résumé’s than the teams VT beat in the 2022 ACC.

 

[Jake]

I like Jay Bilas idea of selecting teams after the regular season and have the conference tournaments for automatic bids only.Nothing you do in conference tournaments should matter except for getting the automatic bid.

I live the idea….I’ll make it one better. Release the bracket before the tournaments and make them a basketball hunger games. Teams at the bottom die when a when conference tournaments winners get into the dance. Lol.

 

[jncuse]

Obviously, the 2006 BET run was iconic, but yeah that team was comically overseeded. Objectively, we should have been in a 8/9 game, at best.

They were overseeded by maybe one line.
Compared to Virginia Tech we were arguably on the inside (not comfortably) before the BET started, and won 4 higher quality games then Virginia Tech did.

The 2006 BE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2022 ACC.

Syracuse beat a 1 seed, 5 seed, 5 seed, 7 seed (4 Q1 games at the time -- back when there was less Q1 games to be had... also called Group 1 games)
VTech won 2 Q1 games (1 seed and 8 seed) and beat a non tourney team.

 

[suorange08]

One of those is really not like the others...

 

[jncuse]

I think Notre Dame ultimately got in because they really did nothing bad (only 1 Q3 loss).

I don't think the committee wanted to shut out any P5 team that went 15-5 that did not have much bad on their resume.

When Nebraska missed the tournament at 13-5 (or 14-4) in the BIG conference, they had more crap and bad losses.

 

[Eric15]

They were overseeded by maybe one line.
Compared to Virginia Tech we were arguably on the inside (not comfortably) before the BET started, and won 4 higher quality games then Virginia Tech did.

The 2006 BE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2022 ACC.

Syracuse beat a 1 seed, 5 seed, 5 seed, 7 seed (4 Q1 games at the time -- back when there was less Q1 games to be had... also called Group 1 games)
VTech won 2 Q1 games (1 seed and 8 seed) and beat a non tourney team.

[humbly concedes the point knowing I'm intellectually overmatched with jncuse re: anything bubble/seeding related]

 

[Newhouser]

I think Notre Dame ultimately got in because they really did nothing bad (only 1 Q3 loss).

I don't think the committee wanted to shut out any P5 team that went 15-5 that did not have much bad on their resume.

When Nebraska missed the tournament at 13-5 (or 14-4) in the BIG conference, they had more crap and bad losses.

ND got in because they beat Kentucky.

 

[jncuse]

ND got in because they beat Kentucky.

That helps a lot too!

It's amazing to me that an ACC team can go 15-5 in conference and yet only get 1 Q1 victory in those games.

 

[Alsacs]

Michigan is favored over Colorado State i just pounded Colorado State +110 while they are still underdogs.

 

[jncuse]

[humbly concedes the point knowing I'm intellectually overmatched with jncuse re: anything bubble/seeding related]

I am working off memory so I concede that you may be more right than you think, and I could be the one that is off.

Unfortunately there is not any matrix data (before 2007) or nitty/gritty stuff that I can find from 2006. That being said I remember getting in a long spirited pissing match with someone about Cuse as a 5 seed at the time, (a Wisconsin fan on a college sports board) so a few of the things around that time have stayed in my head.

 

[stuckinbig11]

How can Michigan be in it at all?

 

[dasher]

In my opinion, a win in mid-November should have the same exact value as a win in early March. I put zero value in who is playing best "as of late."

I think that is ridiculous. It is exactly who you are in March that matters most. often, a veteran team can get off to a good start and as the season moves on, teams catch and pass them. That is who you want in the tournament.

 

[PoppyHart]

Georgia got in as a 13 seed 1 year despite winning the SEC.
Oregon State was a 12 last year.
Georgetown was a 12 last year.

 

[bballbeadle]

Midwest region is going to be upset City.

Iowa is honestly my pick.
Gonzaga got a pretty tough draw.

Duke friends think Gonzaga is a tough draw. They are all depressed.

 

[Alsacs]

Georgia got in as a 13 seed 1 year despite winning the SEC.
Oregon State was a 12 last year.
Georgetown was a 12 last year.

Actually Georgia got a 14 seed that year in 2008.
I only remember that because John Feinstein reported Georgia winning the SEC tournament took the last spot away from us.

Virginia Tech got what they deserved an 11.

 

[Orangezoo]

How can Michigan be in it at all?

Michigan is 33 in the NET and Ken Pom. They had 5 Q1 wins and overall 15 of their 31 games played were Q1 games. So essentially the numbers favored them a ton.

 

[Alsacs]

Duke friends think Gonzaga is a tough draw. They are all depressed.

Duke got a tough draw after the first weekend.

Michigan State isn’t great and Davidson is decent.

Neither have the speed to scare Duke.
Texas Tech would be tough but Tech struggles to score away from home.

Duke beat Gonzaga in Vegas.

I actually thought Gonzaga got a fairly tough draw. One of the 2 teams to beat them in their region and Arkansas potentiallly in sweet 16 who is good.

 

[donniesyracuse]

“Atrocities” seems extreme.

 

[jncuse]

I think that is ridiculous. It is exactly who you are in March that matters most. often, a veteran team can get off to a good start and as the season moves on, teams catch and pass them. That is who you want in the tournament.

People have different views on whether a March game should be more important. I can accept the position of both as to what would be the better policy.

But in the end the NCAA tournament has clearly laid out in its seeding and selection principles / by laws that all games count the same no matter when they are played, and have established over a number of years now that this is how they select teams. As long as they are following their defined rules I can't really argue with the selections themselves.

You can argue that the policy of making all the games the same are ridiculous. But you can't say the way a committee seeded a team is ridiculous if they were made in line with the rules and policies.

 

[TinyManInside]

Virginia Tech has the resume of an 11 seed. No issues with that seeding IMO.

 

[STEVEHOLT]

Virginia Tech has the resume of an 11 seed. No issues with that seeding IMmo

Your logo at first glance looks like a huge spider

 

[EnviroSciGuy]

Your logo at first glance looks like a huge spider

I wonder what a shrink would say about that.